Monday, February 2, 2015

ENDANGERING INJURED VICTIM (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2) model jury charge

ENDANGERING INJURED VICTIM

(N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2) model jury charge

(Defendant) is charged with endangering an injured person[1], (name), on (date). This conduct is prohibited by a statute
providing:

A
person is guilty of endangering an injured victim if he causes bodily injury to
any person or solicits, aids, encourages, or attempts or agrees to aid another,
who causes bodily injury to any person, and leaves the scene of the injury
knowing or reasonably believing that the injured person is physically helpless,
mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself.

To find
(defendant) guilty of endangering an injured person, the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements:

1.That
he/she
caused bodily injury to another or solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted
or agreed to aid another person in causing bodily injury to the victim;

2.That
the injured person was physically helpless, mentally incapacitated, or
otherwise unable to care for himself/herself; and

3.That he/she left the
scene of the injury knowing or reasonably believing that the injured person was
physically helpless, mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for
himself/herself.

The first
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
(defendant) caused bodily injury to another or solicited, aided,
encouraged, or attempted or agreed to aid a third person in causing bodily
injury to another.Bodily injury means
physical pain, illness, or impairment of physical condition.

As to causation, the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, but for (defendant’s) conduct, the victim would not have suffered bodily
injury.

As to soliciting, aiding,
encouraging, or attempting or agreeing to aid a third person in causing bodily
injury to another, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) solicited,
aided, encouraged, or attempted or agreed to endanger another person or
solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted to aid another in doing so.It does not matter whether (defendant) actually
caused such injury.A person is guilty
of an attempt if he/she purposely
does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as a reasonable
person would believe them to be, is an act or omission constituting a
substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission
of a crime.

A person acts purposely with respect
to the nature of his/her conduct or a
result thereof if it is his/her conscious
object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.A person acts purposely with respect to
attendant circumstances if he/she is aware of
the existence of such circumstances or he/she believes or
hopes that they exist.

The second element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the person who suffered bodily
injury was [CHOOSE AS
APPROPRIATE] physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to
care for himself/herself at that time.

“Physically helpless” means the
condition in which a person is unconscious, unable to flee, or physically
unable to summon assistance.[2]

“Mentally incapacitated” means that
condition in which a person is rendered temporarily or permanently incapable of
understanding or controlling one’s conduct, or of appraising or controlling
one’s condition, which incapacity shall include but is not limited to an
inability to comprehend one’s own peril.[3]

The third element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (defendant) left the scene of the injury knowing or
reasonably believing that the injured person was [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] physically
helpless, or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for
himself/herself at that time.

A person acts knowingly when he/she is aware
that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause bodily injury.A person acts knowingly with respect to the
nature of his/her conduct or
the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware
that his/her conduct is of that nature, or that such
circumstances exist, or he/she is aware of
the high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly as to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware
that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will
cause such a result.Knowing, with
knowledge, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.

In determining whether (defendant) acted purposely
or knowingly, consider the nature of the acts themselves and the severity of
the resulting injury.

Whether (defendant) acted
purposely or knowingly toward the injured person is a question of fact for you
to decide.Purpose and knowledge are
conditions of the mind.They cannot be
seen.Often, they can be determined only
by inferences from conduct, words or acts.Therefore, it is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to
testify that (defendant) stated, for
example, that he/she acted
purposely or knowingly when he/she did a
particular thing.It is within your
power to find that proof of purpose or knowledge has been furnished beyond a
reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of the acts and
the surrounding circumstances.The place
where the acts occurred and all that was done or said by (defendant) proceeding,
connected with, and immediately succeeding the events leading to the
interaction with (victim) are among
the circumstances to be considered.

[CHARGE AS APPLICABLE: AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE]

It is an affirmative defense to the
crime that (defendant) summoned
medical treatment for (the
injured person) or knew that medical treatment had been summoned
by another person and protected (the
injured person) from further injury or harm until emergency
assistance personnel arrived.(Defendant) must prove
this defense by a preponderance of the evidence - that is to say, the greater
weight of the credible evidence (or evidence that is more probable, more
persuasive, or of greater probative value).For (defendant) to prove
this defense, the evidence supporting it must weigh more heavily in your minds
and be more convincing than the evidence opposing it.The burden of proof is sustained by the
quality of the evidence, not the quantity.

[CHARGE IN ALL
CASES]

If the State has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that (defendant) caused
bodily injury to (the
injured person), or solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted or
agreed to aid another in causing bodily injury to (the injured person), and he/she knew or
reasonably believed that (that
[injured] person) was physically helpless, or mentally
incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself at that time, [CHARGE AS APPLICABLE: and (defendant)
has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she summoned medical treatment for the
injured person or knew that medical treatment had been summoned by another
person, and that he/she protected the victim from further injury
until emergency assistance arrived], you must find him/her guilty of
endangering an injured person.

However, if the State has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) caused
bodily injury to (the person), or
solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted or agreed to aid another in causing
bodily injury to (the
injured person), and he/she knew or
reasonably believed that (that
[injured] person) was physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated,
or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself at that time, injured, [CHARGE AS APPLICABLE: or if (defendant)
has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she summoned medical treatment for the
injured person or knew that medical treatment had been summoned by another
person, and that he/she protected the victim from further injury
until emergency assistance arrived], you must find him/her not guilty.

[1]The statute used the
term “victim” in subsection a, the word “person” in subsection b, and the word
“victim” in subsection c.“Person” has
been used to refer to the injured party here where the statute is not directly
quoted in order to avoid any emotional connotation which might flow from
repeating the word “victim.”